Skip to content


Muzaffar HusaIn and anr. Vs. Muhammad Yaqub - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All289
AppellantMuzaffar HusaIn and anr.
RespondentMuhammad Yaqub
Excerpt:
.....which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - several grounds have been taken for transfer, but i confine myself to one point which i think is a strong one in favour of the applicants......affidavit the applicants state; that there was a talk of compromise between the parties and the learned magistrate sent for the ulemas of both sides and tried to arbitrate in the matter which arbitration subsequently fell through. on this point the learned magistrate says, in the statement supplied to the learned government advocate-in order to make the parties compromise the case i had no doubt made an attempt in that way etc. etc.2. reliance is placed on behalf of the applicants on the case of gobinda chandra roy v. gopal chandra pandit (1912) 18 c.l.j. 150. in that case two learned judges of the calcutta high court were of opinion that where a magistrate had interested himself in a case pending before him in the way of obtaining a settlement by the parties, it was to the interest.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. This is an application for the transfer of a certain criminal prosecution under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Maulvi Sharafat-ullah Khan, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to the court of some other Magistrate in the district. The prosecutor is a Sunni Muhamtnedan and the applicants are of Shia persuasion. It appears that an application was made to the District Magistrate himself for a transfer of the case, but it did not succeed. Several grounds have been taken for transfer, but I confine myself to one point which I think is a strong one in favour of the applicants. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit the applicants state; that there was a talk of compromise between the parties and the learned Magistrate sent for the Ulemas of both sides and tried to arbitrate in the matter which arbitration subsequently fell through. On this point the learned Magistrate says, in the statement supplied to the learned Government Advocate-

In order to make the parties compromise the case I had no doubt made an attempt in that way etc. etc.

2. Reliance is placed on behalf of the applicants on the case of Gobinda Chandra Roy v. Gopal Chandra Pandit (1912) 18 C.L.J. 150. In that case two learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court were of opinion that where a Magistrate had interested himself in a case pending before him in the way of obtaining a settlement by the parties, it was to the interest of both the parties land it was but fair to the Magistrate him-self that he should not hear the case. I think that this principle, with which I agree, applies with full force to the present case.

3. I order that the case be transferred from the Court of Maulvi Sharafat-ullah Khan to the court of some such other Magistrate as the District Magistrate may choose. Of course it would be open to the District Magistrate to hear the ease himself.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //